Comments Avelhingst has made

I've read Mr. Hurst's little tirade; unfortunately, he deviates not at all from the standard bloviations of the Farm Bureau-y set - extraordinarily reactionary bloviations that really don't help hisself nor anyone likehisself, but rather the folks that have been bleeding the poor bugger dry all these years, courtesy of the government subsidies. 

I have yet to meet a soil scientist (and yes, I do know a fair number despite their rarity) who espouses this 'nutritionist' philosophy of soil management.  From day one in their training, soil scientists learn that soil is a sort of living organism, a composition of time and climate and minerals and life.  But enought prating about whose scientific specialty is more to blame for some part of the failure of American agriculture to safeguard its assets!

Another point: certain plant cultivars, massal selections, or clones are much more suited to organic agriculture than chemag, and vice-versa.  Herein lies the rub - certain parties are interested in proving that organic food is more 'nutritionally healthful' to consumers than chemag produce, but reducing the variables enough takes away from the research that might be done to show the differences in varieties that thrive in the differing environments.  Also, the nutrition debate takes away from the other aspects of organic production models, such as the elimination (as far as possible) of pesticide residues in our food supply.

Really, too, we must continue to focus on how best to preserve and increase our soil's ability to produce food.  Ask any decent soil scientist, and they will tell you that the absolute best way to reduce erosion, leaching, run-off, and to increase soil aeration, water retention, nutrient cycling, and the ability of plants to fight infection is to turn to no-till systems (whether it be through chemical fallow, permanent cover, perennial crops); organic if possible.  Perhaps this is diverging from the debate about organic vs. chemag soil weltanschauungen in regards to human nutrition, but getting enough calories at all in the future is worth discussing as well.

Sigh.  Same-old-same-old.  Although China's destruction of fertile lands for construction of spanking-new cities and towns and factories and powerplants and reservoirs and infrastructure gets a little more coverage in our mainstream press (and by us I am referring to U.S.), in India it seems the process is both more engaging of civil society and also more damning.  India does not have a strong, centrally-organized family planning policy; current farmlands, while dissapearing at an alarming rate due to urban incroachment and poor soil management, face increasingly stiff demands upon production.  India, especially rapidly-growing regions such as Maharashta (Mumbai) and Bihar (Kalcutta), should focus on shoring up the rural economy and the lives of the peasants for a few reasons: one, food production; two, a prospering peasantry will more likely educate children and reduce family size; three, dislocating rural residents only re-inforces the slum growth. 

These powerplants should NOT be located on fertile productive ground.  Short, medium, and long range planning in all of India must be more focused on maintaining land productivity if that country expects to remain a growing economic power and realize prosperity for her people. Farmland in much of India is treated by the peasants as a jewel beyond rubies - wisdom indeed.  The destruction of farmland is tantamount to the desectration of a divine (if you'll forgive me some romanticism) gift and should be treated as such. 

How, then, do emerging economic powers continue to throttle forward in the quest for material prosperity?  Well, the first major step towards wise stewardship would be reducing corruption (not just in the case of India, but in general) and the involvement of peasant landholding groups in planning processes.  Secondly, in the general case but especially in the case of India, would be excersizing wisdom in instituting a long-term planning strategy on the scale of the whole economy... NOT that I am speaking of planned economies AT ALL, but of planning how to lay out infrastructure, the development of the power grid, and the like, as demand grows.  We could do with a dose of such strategy in the US as well. 

Please don't do that here.

Thanks for displaying a prime example of alchemagrum jargobabble to the hoi palloi.  See, alot of folks think a penchant for organic farming is courageous or that it requires more thought.  Well, handling these sorts of chemicals takes far more courage than I can muster, and I prefer to think that organic agriculture doesn't take MORE thought, just a different kind of thinking.  Also - I cannot fathom the reason why one would want to tie oneself to a burden of operating debt just to go out and buy vats of poisons that may or may not show a profit.  Uff da. 

An ecxellent report about food production... and the future.  I would also point to a number of recent articles written by The Economist involving huge parcels of land being acquired by the People's Republic of China.  The Economist also points to the downfall of the government of Madagascar on a land deal that would have given the PRC 1.2 million hectares of that country's arable land - about half of the total.  If China has seen such a marvelous tranformation, why is the Chinese government scrabbling about for more and more land in other countries?  This trend is also being followed by wealthy Gulf States with little or no arable land but lots of cash, too.

EileenDeuxieme:

As a matter of fact, the 'theraputic' use of reproductive hormones in livestock agriculture has seen a dramatic increase in the past handful of years.  Whether it be in dairy animals, pigs, even beef (I've not heard of such a thing in the poultry industry, though egg hatching rates have shown increased variability of late [this last observation on poultry is highly subjective and not based on any hard data from major producers]) such theraputic use has morphed into wholesale preventative use because impregnating animals has become so troublesome.  Part of this increased usage is due to decreasing margins: it may, in some cases, be cheaper to load up animals with hormones and decrease impregnation failure. 

In the industry itself, the leading research on the topic - done by land-grant institutions for the benefit of the drug manufacturers, bien sur - suggests that the large-scale fertility problems in animal agriculture derive from a) stress and b) genetics.

Such suggestions fall short because, in case of a) stress, in many cases operations that work to reduce animal stress over the years, or have not increased stressors, have also seen increases in reproductive failure.  Usually in these cases, reproductive failure has become the leading cause of unintentional culling.  In the case of b) genetics, these suggestions also fall short becuase they rest on the case that American livestock agriculture has not been actively selecting for reproductive performance.  While reproductive perfomance has not been quantified by the AIPL (Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory at the USDA) until recently, every mating and every successful birth is itself an act of selection for reproductive performance.  If genetic components were at work, then it would be because breeders were selecting for traits that actively inhibit reproduction.  In Europe, producers have very similar selection pressures, but european livestock agriculture is not nearly as completely dependent on the use of reproductive hormone supplementation as it is in the USA.

Perhaps we, as a scientific community, should look more closely at the data coming forth from animal breeding programs in countries using GMO food crops - after all, it IS true that we are conducting a massive open-air research programme on the utility and benefits of GMO food in animals and humans - but since most animals have a much shorter reproductive interval, their populations may be more telling.

Millets and sorghums are species that do have a great deal of innate resistance to extreme heat and dryness; much more so than maize.  Millet, especially, can miraculously perform under mind-bogglingly poor conditions.  However, the amount of reseach being spent on all forms of dryland tropical grains should shame the world - or at least shame the poorest nations on earth into banding their resources together for better research on the topic.  Another major stumbling block in the use of sorghums and millets: native to Africa and more well adapted than, say, maize, the seed/grain crop is exposed to the varagies of pests, from pollen eating blister beetles to the wee weaver birds in sky-darkening hosts that can strip fields bare in less than an hour.  Oh, and locusts - but they will eat anything.

The greatest question, though, involves instability of climate.  The dryland areas of africa have 'averages' but these averages do not expose the true variability inherent in the climate; as the continent heats, will the rains become more severe, more reliable, or both? Or neither?  So far I have yet to see a decent model that can predict Sahelian conditions with any reliability over the near or far term.  In fact, such wild swings in climate could render large tracts of land un-farmable regardless of whether this crop or this variety will produce under the 'average' regime.

Interesting note about systemic use of rBST (the hormone you are referring to): although use in the US peaked at about 50% of total dairy cows getting injected twice a month, that number has fallen as the economic returns also go down; unfortunately, the cows become unable to produce enough of the normal BST for themselves and cannot take the withdrawal very well. Monsanto worked UNBELIEVEABLY hard to get rBST on the market, worked INDEFATIGUEABLY hard to get dairy producers to use it, and worked UNETHICALLY to keep produced in such a way unsegregated in the market AND force its use upon other developed countries - through the WTO.  Troublesome, no?

I think you would get a great deal of valuable information from a book called "The Devil in the Milk" by Keith Woodford, out of New Zealand (available on Amazon, I think).  Lots of good information about the whys and wherefores of certain chronic illnesses and dairy products.  A good read too.

The DEIP program that is the heart of this article you've linked to are targeted ONLY in markets where dairy exports are competing with others that have the benefit of export subsidies - i.e. dairy products from the European Union.  Of course they are going to complain.  Brazil complains incessantly because of the protectionist stance of the ethanol (highly subsidized) industry.  Australia and New Zealand are adamantly opposed because they will not or can not afford to compete with the export subsidies of the European Union. I oppose all export subsidies.  The U.S. dairy industry will not really benefit from this at all - only a few multinational food conglomerates that now openly pit the US and EU against each other to push the price down on the backs of producers AND taxpayers.

Secondly, I dispute that dairy is a highly subsidized aspect of US agriculture. The MILC program, the only program to subsidize dairies - is a drop in the bucket of total spending and only an emergency stop-gap in dire times.  Dairies - particularly the megamega dairies of the West (California, Idaha, and increasingly Utah and New Mexico/Arizona) and the emerging megamega dairies of the mid-west DO benefit from the low cost of certain feedstuffs produced in over-abundance by subsidized crop farmers... the real complaint is that now so much of our grain crop is going to ethanol, subsidies do not really push down total price.  It is the smaller dairies, usually supplying the fluid milk for urban markets, that are in fact punished by such policies and subsidies.

The real issue at hand is the skyrocketing use of extremely cheap dairy import powders - usually Milk Protein Concentrates (MPCs).  MPCs are not made in this country - they are not allowed in real cheese and real fluid milk is more cost-effective in the cheese vat.  However, MPCs do come into this country from all over the back of beyond in ever-increasing quantities.  Lax oversight of powerful processing monopolies allows this.  More importantly to the public at large, however, is the complete lack of inspections on both MPC imports and MPC manufacturers and their suppliers.  Dairy farms are the most highly inspected and regulated aspect of agriculture in this country today; it is for SAFETY.  Dairy imports allow for processors to bypass the safety, and therefor the market-oriented expense - of purchasing domestic milk.  It is supply and demand, but in a grey-market sort of way.

Here is an article from the Examiner, and here is another from the Jamestown (Colorado) Sun.

I assure you, all dairy farmers are facing serious trouble, expecailly those selling to Cooperatives.  In fact, the small local dairies who are MEMBER/OWNERS of Darigold (Washington State) have been told they must pony up a significant chunk of change from every pound of milk they sell to transfer to the mega-dairies in Idaho who are floundering around in vast, vast seas of red ink... buckets of money so large that the banks are completely panic-stricken.  Mind you, these are the same farmers who petitioned their Senators (successfully) to KILL the MILC program, period, because the MILC program only will pay out up to a certain amount of milk shipped (favorable to smaller farms).  Fortunately, their senators were shook up by the Larry Craig affair and were not successful in killing the MILC program, for now.

Nicholas Kristof looks mighty well-fed; he cannot possibly understand hunger if he hasn't BEEN hungry.  Nor can almost anyone - it's all well and good to suggest (very appropriate!) solutions to ongoing hunger crises in Africa - but hunger there is supported by a three-legged stool: government actions or inactions; grinding rural poverty and lack of capital; and climate instability.  Only by addressing all three aspects can real changes be made - although one can't really CHANGE climate change, but one can incorporate it into a larger-scale vision of agrarian production.

A farmer's work is never done, I'm afraid.  I'll tell you all a secret to getting a lot of reading done whilst simultaneously working all the time: set up a reading station near the toilet.  Works wonders!

Studying how other crops are grown can, hopefully, synthesize into developing novel - and, one hopes, profitable - ways of managing your farm.  That's what I have found, anyhow.  I would say that reading and researching is, in fact, a vital farm work function.

In a reply to your earlier post, I wonder what kind of soils and what kind of rainfall regime could cause crops to grow less well with cow manure than with anhydrous? In all my experiences, cow manure increases the organic matter of the soil, causing skyrocketing populations of soil biota.  This increase allows for greater water infiltration, aeriation, soil particle retention (resistance to erosion), and more sturdy stalks of plants grown.  I will not quibble with your statement that anhydrous ammonia is more efficient than cow manure, but I do want to know what metrics you use to measure.

Happy tilling.

The silliest problem in this whole mess: the water for the farms and cities and irrigation districts doesn't come, legally, from the Delta but from storage reservoirs way up the Sacramento River and related network.  The water is released into that river and makes its way down to the Delta, where gargantuan, science-fiction Year 3000 sized pumps suck up water.  The currents generated from this pumping has long been known to be one of the most severe dangers to the Delta's ecology (in years when water supply isn't QUITE such a problem). 

So: first job is to take the water supplying cities and irrigation districts in the project area and move it AROUND the Delta and avoild the mess in the Delta; then, only two almost insurmountable problems would remain - insuring enough water reaches the Delta so that estuarine functions continues and keeping toxins from accumulating in said water in amounts damaging (either acutely or chronically).

Moving fruit and vegetable production back to areas of demand instead of areas with the cheapest water and land and labour is a highly challenging initiative... I encourage the author to check out the efforts of the Northwest Agricultural Business Center and look at how they address the shortages of labour, processing facilities, and land that can frusturate even the most innovative farmers.

Now is not the time for hysterical finger-pointing and the lassoo-ing of circumstance.  I would like to think that readers of GRIST would more appreciate factual accounts, or at least citations to leaps. 

I suppose the idea that the past, that smaller farms were somehow more intrinsically less prone to virulent zoonotic infections than CAFOs bothers me at a deep level.  I agree that the preponderance of the evidence DOES show that CAFO animals (swine, cattle, chickens) consistently are immuno-suppressed.  However, in my mind that does not equate to greater danger for humans - if anything, perhaps LESS danger.  Any viri that spread wildly in a confined unit does not need to be as virulent as other viri that spread wildly in more resistant populations (a small herd of swiss pigs, for example).  Furthermore, lest we forget, in the olden days, agriculturalists lived in dread fear of swine flu, swine cholera, rinderpest, cattle plagues, et cetera; and that the most destructive and deadly 'flus have come out of the small, sustainable farms of southern China... indeed, it is the trio of ducks (harboring avian flu but not showing symptoms), swine (swine flu), and rice cultivation (lots of local labor, lots of people together) that have bred these deadly diseases in the past.  I would remind all readers that CAFOs, while silly, should not automatically become a scapegoat without harder evidence.

Furthermore - what is up with this quote? "...it’s also time that the public started to openly question why CAFOs and their owners are able to so brazenly flout environmental law."  WHAT LAW? I'm sure that Smithfield Megacorp complies with some form or another of environmental regulation depending on the location of their facilities - or at least that they make the appearance of doing so.  I would point out that this allegation is completely without merit based on the facts presented in this article and is, rather, pointless histrionics.  Besides that, most environmental regulations of CAFOs vary widely between states and nations, with or without merit.  But still - readers of GRIST are not a rabble to be roused, but, I think, a well-educated and discerning army that desires, and deserves, better.

Just something I've run across - my ladyfriend cannot consume carbs without balancing them with proteins at the same time, and for her almond milk is RIGHT OUT - 1gram protein or something similar (I am quoting her on this).  However, an almond milk smoothy with 1 non-local mango and a heap of dairy whey (eww, sick, w/ev) is MIGHTY tasty.

For anyone interested in a second 'Green Revolution,' particularly one aimed at Africa, I strongly encourage them to check a book called 'Out of the Earth' by David Hillel (an isreali soils scientist).  There is one chapter that takes a hard and close look at the reasons why a) the first green revolution failed there, and b) the reasons why the biennial cry for a second green revolution for africa also fail to take root.  I can guarantee you that for most all of the still poor people out there, genetic engineering is not the solution; primarily because of the costs associated with patented gene technology, but also because the various strategies for crop production simply do not comply with the dominant paridigm in the seed breeding / creating industry nor with the development / foreign aid industry.

What a lovely discourse!

Anyrate: Regulation of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel sources is, in my humble opinion, far far far overdue.  However, the EPA is NOT the agency for the job, despite the fact that anthropogenic global climate change will cause harm to many persons and nations (and IS causing harm as I type).

The real solution for all nations is to penalize the use of fossil carbon to generate CO2, period.  I fear that the EPA will only penalize the production of CO2 gas without any consideration of source... let us say that hypothetically, instead of making the diesel in a tractor's tank more expensive and making it more cost effectove for farmers to institute diesel-saving alternatives of many different types, the EPA could regulate such things as plowing, or cultivating, or fertilizing fields (since plowing incorporates organic matter and oxygen in the soil, increasing respiration [CO2], or cultivation, which could do the same, or fertilizing, as increases in metabolism in the soil also leads to respiration), or for gods' sakes, fining owners of livestock such as sheep, goats, pigs, cattle, and horses because they MIGHT FART for chrissakes...

The solution that this nation needs must be crafted in the legislature, not through a punitive regulatory agency, but it must come soon.  Perhaps the threat of EPA regulation will get even the most obstinate senators and representatives off of their fat, cushy asses and down to the floor to do some real honest lawmaking.

Perenniality

  On another tack, the Land Institute has another potential solution: developing perennial grain crops to better take up nutrients, like water, and to preserve or increase soil organic matter/soil particle retention.  Many people, including some agronomists, reject this as some kind of 'pie-in-the-sky' notion.  However, it has definite potential advantages and merits far more research dollars - the researchers are already there, crying out for adequate funding.  Here http://www.landinstitute.org/pages/Bioscience_PerennialGr ... is a brief, but general, overview of some of the research and potentials published in 2006.  For interested parties, more information can be had at http://www.landinstitute.orgOn Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatures posted 10 months ago 8 Responses

Externalization of costs

I believe what your are trying to reach for in your guest commentary here, Mr. Goodman, is the concept of 'externalization of costs.'  Industry in general, not excluding agricultural enterprises, is very adept at externalizing all sorts of costs, whether it be soil and nutrient loss, uninsured workers, or the costs of genetically altered organisms infiltrating a species' entire genome or inculcating resistance on the part of pest species.  
Likewise, manufacturers of agricultural produce - be it food or fibre - have long, long practiced the art of increasing the bottom line at share-holder pleasing rates against the producers of the agricultural goods they buy.  They are increasingly good at it - from manipulating pricing structures to fighting country-of-origin labeling (this pertains to the United States).  In fact, I find it patently absurd that labeling laws are so lax in the United States; not only does a manufacturer obfuscate about origins, but certain information on food is prohibited (another subject for another time).
However, if I were to critique this ideal of a wonderful future fed from small, mixed, prosperous farmsteads, it would be education and literacy.  The complexity of a farm increases exponentially with every added layer; to profitably, ethically, and humanely operate such an enterprise requires vast quantities of knowledge built over years of experience and education and other forms of informal knowledge exchange.  Parceling out good land to small-holders is one thing, but such a scheme can only succeed if it contains a strong component for education.On Studies show mono-cultures, GMOs, and globalization are problems, not solutions posted 10 months, 4 weeks ago 3 Responses

good heart

  I would like to reintroduce a term to popular usage:  "Keep the land in good eart." Also spelled in some cases, 'heart.' Grazing animals (usually cattle since they don't have upper incisors) has long been known to be a crucial rotation in cropping systems to keep the land in good eart - that is to say, reestablish soil fertility, rest the land from disturbance, and allow the natural flora and fauna of the soil to flourish and enhance nutrient cycling and porosity and water retention and all that good stuff.  If we truly want to have a sustainable agricultural system, then it is crucial to keep animals as part of that system, usually in rotation. On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses

A few things...

  First, I'd just like to say that it is ridiculous to ask a dairy farmer if their milk is free of antibiotics and/or growth hormones.  For one, all milk in any store in this country has to be free of antibiotics, so using such a claim is absurd.  Likewise, asking a dairy farmer if their product is free of antibiotics is nigh insulting.  In the same vein, asking if there is any growth hormones in the milk is a bit absurd.  The appropriate question is "Do you administer rBGH or other synthetic hormones to animals under your care?"  THAT gets to the crux of the matter.  Taste, too, must always be paramount.  Never buy poorly aged cheese!
 Also, regarding camel's milk cheese - it's quite good! Rich, but light on the tongue.  On Not all fermented dairy products are created equal posted 11 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

Sir

It's called being polite, sir/maamzelle.On Newsweek considers an Obama baby boom posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Well, duh.

Prez-elect Obama will have his work cut out for him if he is to choose folk to head these agencies that have not been co-opted by corporations plumping GMOs.  After all, as the article points out, funding for research in agriculture has been choked off, leaving academia to whore itself to the GMO dream.  Public-policy folk, too, live in a world that relies on corporate largesse, and the folks with the money are the folks with the patented seeds that can survive when exposed to their patented chemicals.
  I guess I'll stick with my tried and true motto: Local and wholesome makes you love longer.On Long-term study: GMOs lower fertility in mice posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

Poverty = Environmental Degredations?

  Interesting.  Note how many of the above top ten pollution problems globally are either a) the result of poverty or b) poor governance.  Indoor air pollution? A problem in homes where most cooking is done over open fires day in and day out.  Low-tech lead battery recycling? Done by children eking out some sort of existence with their families on the very fringes of modern society.  Untreated sewage? The result of communities sprawling beyond capacity and who are either too poor or too poorly managed to take care of the problem.  The correlations continue, but time does not allow me to continue.  I will point out, too, that almost all of the top ten pose also serious human health hazards, especially difficult to deal with in an environment of urban and rural poverty and eroded confidence in the state.On Green group catalogs world's 10 worst pollution problems posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

l'Afrique

One thing to keep in mind when considering agriculture in Africa: the soil itself, across the continent (with the exception of the Ethiopian highlands and well-watered sections of the Rift [and part of Chad]) is very very old and highly weathered.  As a result, the fields are very low in native fertility and generally become easy targets for erosion.  We, the UN or other donors, and for-profit enterprises can discuss crops until we are blue in the face - but until soil and fertility management become top priorities, scarcity, deprivation, and the inability to resist the effects of too much or too little moisture will continue to bedevil all attempts to ameliorate the situation.  
What, then, happens to peasants who take initiative and improve their soils and hence their crop yields?  Who knows!  The effemeral nature of land tenure or rights-of-access in many African countries cannot but stymie efforts of farmers.  If someone likes your land (say, a corrupt petty government officer) and can appropriate it through intimidation, then what incentive does said farmer have to improve his or her farm?  
  The night grows old.  Perhaps I should sleep and feel more optimistic in the morning.  However, tonight it lays before me like an arid plain; nigh insurmountable.
On David Rieff on the Gates Foundation's 'Green Revolution in Africa' posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses